This is a recap and follow-up to a previous story on the Palo Alto Taser task force ("Strange Fruit: The Task of Forcing Tasers on Palo Alto" at http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/03/06/18373044.php), detailing the players and their tricks. It was originally posted on the online forum of the Palo Alto Weekly newspaper, where passages were removed by Palo Alto Weekly staff.

Watching the Taser task force meetings has helped me temporarily put
aside my fears about Tasers. Far more frightening than the threat of
Tasers is the way that they are being forced on the public: shrouded
in secrecy, with large doses of deception, hearing only speakers from
PAPD and other police departments with Tasers, and bypassing effective
public input.

Regardless of whether one is pro or anti-Taser, I think we can all
agree that an analysis of a request from any public department must
evaluate the impact on the public - not just limit the discussion to
the desires and perceived needs of the department making the
request. This is not just a quirk of the "Palo Alto process". This is
called "accountability". Yet the Taser task force has announced that
they will vote on a recommendation to City Council - even though they
have only heard presentations by PAPD (at every meeting), Mountain
View police chief, and San Jose police auditor. They've heard only of
the perceived benefits - nothing of the risks. In their three public
meetings they've heard no presentations on safety, civil liberties,
civil liability, or human rights. These issues will all be crammed
into the next meeting on March 27. Then, a few minutes later, they
will vote!

The secret mission began on Dec. 4 2006 when, at the urging of
Councilmember LaDoris Cordell, the City Council decreed "WE BELIEVE
that the City Council should firmly and finally decide whether or not
to permit the use of tasers by our police department". They did not
say why. Nor did they say why now - why not wait until there's some
agreement on the safety of Tasers? Council declarations are usually
rationalized with ample WHEREAS clauses, but this declaration was 100%
WHEREAS-free.

Next, the Council appointed a task force to research Tasers and advise
the Council whether to buy Tasers. Then in their next meeting, just
one week later, the Council voted to apply for $120,000 state grant to
buy the Tasers they were supposedly still deciding on. The police
chief admitted the process was "slightly convoluted", but it sure
seemed "very corrupted" to me.

The criteria for selecting task force members was, of course, secret
but the result was clear: a task force heavily stacked with law
enforcement interests:

The Chief: Lynne Johnson. Not an official member of the task force
but speaks, at length, at every meeting. She is always accompanied by
a fully armed, uniformed policeman (Natasha Powers, famous for her
deceptive interrogation of Jorge Hernandez, which led to his false
arrest for a brutal rape of an elderly woman and cost him a month in
jail - and cost the City $75,000 to settle his subsequent
lawsuit). The show of armed force ensures that "civilian" task force
members won't hear from Taser victims (who are unlikely to risk
confronting armed police again), while sending a chilling message to
Taser opponents that dare to speak out.

The Captain: Dennis Burns. Not a voting member. The Captain was the
only member of PAPD to testify strongly in support of the brutal
beating of 60-year- old Albert Hopkins in the trial of PAPD officers
Kan and Lee. All four senior officers that arrived on the scene
testified that they saw no reason for the arrest, and therefore no
justification for the beating. The Captain testified that the brutal
beating complied with the PAPD policy of The Chief. So we already know
it is PAPD policy to deny the basic human right of freedom from
torture and arbitrary arrest and detention - and The Captain supports
that policy.

The Deputy: Deputy District Attorney Jay Boyarsky is a voting (and
the most active) member even though he, like The Captain, is a law
enforcement officer. Prosecutors typically work closely with
police. Moreover, The Deputy has taken on the role of spokesperson for
law enforcement: "I wanted to let the Paly community know that law
enforcement stands with them against hate incidents," Boyarsky said.
[Paly Voice, Feb. 3 2006]

According to a news report, when a Redwood City man, Rich Shapiro,
picketed outside Sunnyvale police HQ (claiming abuse and assault by
police), it was The Deputy, not police, who responded: "Boyarsky also
said that legal technicalities saved Shapiro from being charged with
indecent exposure or committing a lewd act in public because although
it appeared so to officers, there was no direct proof that anything
lewd was going on "[The Sun, Feb. 5 2004]

No proof is a legal technicality? But when a drunken Stanford law
school student climbed in an on-call ambulance, drove by (and nearly
ran over) the paramedics and patient before running away, The Deputy
had a softer legal opinion regarding proof. Rather than claim the
student was saved by a legal technicality, he asserted her innocence
of the more serious charge: 'Prosecutor Jay Boyarsky said he didn't
charge the more serious felony of stealing a working emergency vehicle
because there was no evidence that Powell wanted to actually steal the
vehicle.>> "This was essentially a joyride," << Boyarsky said. '
[Mercury News, May 23 2006]

So The Deputy is not just an impartial law enforcer. He is an
outspoken advocate for the police who has failed to fully disclose his
conflict of interest.

The Defender: The Deputy's response to the charge that he should not
be on the task force was: "There's a public defender on the panel as
well". How could we forget when we watch The Defender, literally, pat
The Deputy's back? Public Defender Gary Goodman is a voting member. A
public defender is required to act as a "diligent and conscientious
advocate" for his client. The Defender's recent record is certainly
consistent:

- 11/2006: The Defender's client charged with a hate crime of
assault. He told us his client was remorseful and apologized. The
18-year-old pleaded no contest and received 3 years in prison plus 3
years probation, thus handing over success to the prosecutor: The
Deputy Jay Boyarsky. [Mercury News, Nov. 3 2006]

- 2/2007: The Defender's client charged with a fatal hit-and-run. He
pleaded no- contest to manslaughter and two other felonies. The
Defender told the court his client's quick plea was made to spare the
victim's mother further anguish. The client received 19 years in his
second "strike": another successful prosecution for The
Deputy. [Mercury News, Feb. 24 2007]

- 3/2007: The Defender's client charged with attempted murder and
robbery. The 25-year-old pleaded guilty to his third "strike", as The
Defender read his apology letter, and faces a minimum sentence of 40
years to life. The initial prosecutor was, again, The Deputy. [Mercury
News, Mar. 10 2007]

While The Defender and The Deputy clearly make an effective team, should we
expect The Defender to be a "diligent and conscientious advocate" for the
community, to balance against The Deputy's vigorous advocacy for law
enforcement?

With a posse like that I should not have been surprised to read of
their blatant end-run around the Brown Act (requirement for open
meetings) in "Taser Task Force focuses on training, policies" of the
March 16 Palo Alto weekly. But I was taken aback that one member
openly announced that he became convinced of the need for Tasers at
the meeting that the public was purposely excluded from. This group
does not seem interested in even trying to give the appearance of
propriety.

As hard-boiled and cynical as I thought I was, watching this posse has
jolted me to the realization that a part of me really wanted to
believe that at least our local government wasn't completely devoid of
honesty. Now I see that we deserve no better government than the one
we are willing to accept.

Task force member Enoch Choi, M.D. posted links to his blog here and on the Palo Alto Online forum, as well as in email. On the Palo Alto Online forum and in email he stated comments are welcome. So on March 29 I posted a comment on one of his posts, and the forum software responded that it would be reviewed by a moderator. It still has not appeared. In fact, only Enoch Choi's posts appear on the forum. Since March 29 he has posted his replies to two emails and one presentation, but still my response to his post does not appear. So I will reproduce hist post and my response here.

Enoch Choi posted:
21/03: What's the clinical significance that many have called for more studies of tasers used on suspects with Excited Delirium and those under the influence of subs [sic]
Category: Taser
Posted by: enochchoi
Add comment
Existing retrospective studies have reviewed an large number of cases of ICD and found suspects with Excited Delirium to not be at increased risk of death from tasers, and rather, died of Excited Delirium instead. Prospective studies with randomized controlled trials are not expected since such a study would not pass institutional ethics review -- you couldn't get the case subject's consent to enter the trial since they woud not be found competent to make that judgement.

21/03: Are In Custody Deaths (ICD) following taser attributable to adverse effects of tasers or to Excited Delirium?
Category: Taser
Posted by: enochchoi
Add comment
In the vast majority of coroner's cases, In Custody Deaths (ICD) following taser exposure are ruled as attributable to Excited Delirium rather than due to taser exposure. This is reflected in retrospective reviews of cases of ICD following taser exposure, finding that the cause of death is Excited Delirium. This medical evidence is further supported by the failure of any of many court cases attempting to establish tasers as the cause of ICD rather than Excited Delirium. End Post

My response:
Let's be clear. Quoting an article about "excited delirium" in Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, a nursing trade publication:

"there is a great deal of controversy regarding the use of this syndrome to explain sudden death while restrained."

In "Review of Conducted Energy Devices" prepared for the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, Dr. Christine Hall calls excited delirium "a set of signs and symptoms forming a condition that may be associated with sudden death proximal to restraint."
Given that it's a syndrome (formerly more descriptively called "in custody death syndrome"), indicating that little is known about the "condition" aside from the associated symptoms, it's easy to understand why a diagnosis of it as a cause of death is very contoversial in the medical community. Though it is used by medical examiners in most citites and is recognized by the National Association of Medical Examiners, that view is NOT held by the American Medical Association (AMA), nor the American Psychiatric Association, nor the World Health Organization- these organizations do NOT recognize the diagnosis of "excited delirium" as a medical or psychiatric condition.

As pointed out in Enoch Choi's post, prospective studies cannot be found. Yet Dr. Hall points out: "retrospective reviews are fraught with selection and reporting bias" . Under such conditions, it's difficult for me to understand the value of claiming a controversial and poorly understood phenomenon - death following Taser electroshock - can be explained away by another controversial and poorly understood phenomenon - "excited delirium".